Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Jack Lalanne's Advice
Options
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
If the recommendations don’t apply to an individual’s situation, they are not helpful.
I think that’s the point you’re missing.
Lemurcat and GottaBurnEmAll aren’t saying the guidelines are useless because they have their diets dialed in...they’re saying that they’re misguided for recommending an approach which may not resolve the issue. For instance, they gained weight while following these recommendations. Thus, blindly saying “reduce sugar intake” is not necessarily good advice.
What would be helpful is advice to identify the source/cause of the calorie surplus and act accordingly to achieve a deficit.
Let the solution be tailored to the problem.
Well if you you look back 2 of the top 4 sources of calories in the American diet are grain based desserts and pop/energy/sports drinks. So for many people, looking at these items with added sugars (and in the case of grain based desserts unhealthy fats) and low nutrient density is a going to be an excellent starting point.
And for many people (those who already don’t eat many grain based desserts or drink caloric drinks) its a useless waste of time.
Never mind the fact that blindly saying “to be fit and trim, cut out the desserts” also further confuses people into thinking that desserts themselves cause fat gain, opposed to the caloric surplus they may or may not cause.
If you look back at this thread or any post I've put on these boards related to the subject I say CICO is king regarding weight loss/maintenance.
IMO, the fact that grain based desserts and pop, etc are 2 of the 4 highest categories of calories in the US diet means reduction of these high calorie/low nutrition foods really is low hanging fruit for many people regarding weight loss/control.
Yes, and THOSE people would probably benefit from reducing grain-based desserts and pop. If my diet plan had considered of reducing pop (which I consumed only in diet form, and only occasionally) and grain-based desserts (which weren't a regular part of my diet), I would still be fat and perhaps be whining "it's not fair, I don't eat "bad" foods, I must be doomed to be fat). Instead, I looked at my own diet with honesty and identified what I was doing wrong -- that is what I'm recommending.
Also, I don't think Lalanne was saying REDUCE, he was saying cut out. Read his comments on sugar that I quoted above. (For NorthCascades, I think those comments about sugar being worse than smoking and causing you to do bad acts count as demonization.)5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
If the recommendations don’t apply to an individual’s situation, they are not helpful.
I think that’s the point you’re missing.
Lemurcat and GottaBurnEmAll aren’t saying the guidelines are useless because they have their diets dialed in...they’re saying that they’re misguided for recommending an approach which may not resolve the issue. For instance, they gained weight while following these recommendations. Thus, blindly saying “reduce sugar intake” is not necessarily good advice.
What would be helpful is advice to identify the source/cause of the calorie surplus and act accordingly to achieve a deficit.
Let the solution be tailored to the problem.
Well if you you look back 2 of the top 4 sources of calories in the American diet are grain based desserts and pop/energy/sports drinks. So for many people, looking at these items with added sugars (and in the case of grain based desserts unhealthy fats) and low nutrient density is a going to be an excellent starting point.
And for many people (those who already don’t eat many grain based desserts or drink caloric drinks) its a useless waste of time.
Never mind the fact that blindly saying “to be fit and trim, cut out the desserts” also further confuses people into thinking that desserts themselves cause fat gain, opposed to the caloric surplus they may or may not cause.
If you look back at this thread or any post I've put on these boards related to the subject I say CICO is king regarding weight loss/maintenance.
IMO, the fact that grain based desserts and pop, etc are 2 of the 4 highest categories of calories in the US diet means reduction of these high calorie/low nutrition foods really is low hanging fruit for many people regarding weight loss/control.
Yes, and THOSE people would probably benefit from reducing grain-based desserts and pop. If my diet plan had considered of reducing pop (which I consumed only in diet form, and only occasionally) and grain-based desserts (which weren't a regular part of my diet), I would still be fat and perhaps be whining "it's not fair, I don't eat "bad" foods, I must be doomed to be fat). Instead, I looked at my own diet with honesty and identified what I was doing wrong -- that is what I'm recommending.
Also, I don't think Lalanne was saying REDUCE, he was saying cut out. Read his comments on sugar that I quoted above. (For NorthCascades, I think those comments about sugar being worse than smoking and causing you to do bad acts count as demonization.)
I don't consider myself a "clean eater" in any way, shape or form - yet of LaLanne's list, the only items I consume regularly are ice cream (Halo Top, so reduced calories/fat) and soda (diet soda, so zero calories). All the rest I consume anywhere from seldom to very seldom/almost never. Even at my fattest and my sloppiest/most lax levels of food intake, those foods weren't my vices, so his supposedly wonderful advice to cut all those virtually non-existent foods out of my diet would have been of basically zero benefit to me. It's about as useful as telling a vegan that the best way to lose weight is to cut meat products out of their diet. Or telling a marathon runner that they should take up running for weight loss.
I gained weight by eating too much of foods I like - virtually none of which are on that list. I lost weight by eating those same foods, but in smaller quantities, and increasing my caloric expenditure by becoming more active.9 -
JerSchmare wrote: »Question: when were calories listed on foods? I don’t remember them in the 1960s or 1970s. When did listing calories become a thing? (I’m not suggesting they weren’t there, I just didn’t notice). The reason I am asking is maybe people didn’t understand about “eating less cake”, so from a standpoint of educating, it was easier to be more direct and just say, “don’t eat cake”.
I think this philosophy may be relevant to when food labels and calorie counting started to become a thing.
Maybe in Jacks day, there wasnt any knowledge about calories.
According to this, standards for voluntary labels were set in the 1970s and they became mandatory in the 1990s.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209859/
I don't have a good enough memory of the 80s to know whether voluntary labels were widely adopted by many manufacturers, but I do remember my mom doing some version of calorie counting so I figure at least some information was available.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
If the recommendations don’t apply to an individual’s situation, they are not helpful.
I think that’s the point you’re missing.
Lemurcat and GottaBurnEmAll aren’t saying the guidelines are useless because they have their diets dialed in...they’re saying that they’re misguided for recommending an approach which may not resolve the issue. For instance, they gained weight while following these recommendations. Thus, blindly saying “reduce sugar intake” is not necessarily good advice.
What would be helpful is advice to identify the source/cause of the calorie surplus and act accordingly to achieve a deficit.
Let the solution be tailored to the problem.
Well if you you look back 2 of the top 4 sources of calories in the American diet are grain based desserts and pop/energy/sports drinks. So for many people, looking at these items with added sugars (and in the case of grain based desserts unhealthy fats) and low nutrient density is a going to be an excellent starting point.
And for many people (those who already don’t eat many grain based desserts or drink caloric drinks) its a useless waste of time.
Never mind the fact that blindly saying “to be fit and trim, cut out the desserts” also further confuses people into thinking that desserts themselves cause fat gain, opposed to the caloric surplus they may or may not cause.
If you look back at this thread or any post I've put on these boards related to the subject I say CICO is king regarding weight loss/maintenance.
IMO, the fact that grain based desserts and pop, etc are 2 of the 4 highest categories of calories in the US diet means reduction of these high calorie/low nutrition foods really is low hanging fruit for many people regarding weight loss/control.
Yes, and THOSE people would probably benefit from reducing grain-based desserts and pop. If my diet plan had considered of reducing pop (which I consumed only in diet form, and only occasionally) and grain-based desserts (which weren't a regular part of my diet), I would still be fat and perhaps be whining "it's not fair, I don't eat "bad" foods, I must be doomed to be fat). Instead, I looked at my own diet with honesty and identified what I was doing wrong -- that is what I'm recommending.
Also, I don't think Lalanne was saying REDUCE, he was saying cut out. Read his comments on sugar that I quoted above. (For NorthCascades, I think those comments about sugar being worse than smoking and causing you to do bad acts count as demonization.)
I don't consider myself a "clean eater" in any way, shape or form - yet of LaLanne's list, the only items I consume regularly are ice cream (Halo Top, so reduced calories/fat) and soda (diet soda, so zero calories). All the rest I consume anywhere from seldom to very seldom/almost never. Even at my fattest and my sloppiest/most lax levels of food intake, those foods weren't my vices, so his supposedly wonderful advice to cut all those virtually non-existent foods out of my diet would have been of basically zero benefit to me. It's about as useful as telling a vegan that the best way to lose weight is to cut meat products out of their diet. Or telling a marathon runner that they should take up running for weight loss.
I gained weight by eating too much of foods I like - virtually none of which are on that list. I lost weight by eating those same foods, but in smaller quantities, and increasing my caloric expenditure by becoming more active.
Ditto. A big part of my weight gain was lean chicken, cheese and long grain rice.2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
If the recommendations don’t apply to an individual’s situation, they are not helpful.
I think that’s the point you’re missing.
Lemurcat and GottaBurnEmAll aren’t saying the guidelines are useless because they have their diets dialed in...they’re saying that they’re misguided for recommending an approach which may not resolve the issue. For instance, they gained weight while following these recommendations. Thus, blindly saying “reduce sugar intake” is not necessarily good advice.
What would be helpful is advice to identify the source/cause of the calorie surplus and act accordingly to achieve a deficit.
Let the solution be tailored to the problem.
Well if you you look back 2 of the top 4 sources of calories in the American diet are grain based desserts and pop/energy/sports drinks. So for many people, looking at these items with added sugars (and in the case of grain based desserts unhealthy fats) and low nutrient density is a going to be an excellent starting point.
And for many people (those who already don’t eat many grain based desserts or drink caloric drinks) its a useless waste of time.
Never mind the fact that blindly saying “to be fit and trim, cut out the desserts” also further confuses people into thinking that desserts themselves cause fat gain, opposed to the caloric surplus they may or may not cause.
If you look back at this thread or any post I've put on these boards related to the subject I say CICO is king regarding weight loss/maintenance.
IMO, the fact that grain based desserts and pop, etc are 2 of the 4 highest categories of calories in the US diet means reduction of these high calorie/low nutrition foods really is low hanging fruit for many people regarding weight loss/control.
Yes, and THOSE people would probably benefit from reducing grain-based desserts and pop. If my diet plan had considered of reducing pop (which I consumed only in diet form, and only occasionally) and grain-based desserts (which weren't a regular part of my diet), I would still be fat and perhaps be whining "it's not fair, I don't eat "bad" foods, I must be doomed to be fat). Instead, I looked at my own diet with honesty and identified what I was doing wrong -- that is what I'm recommending.
Also, I don't think Lalanne was saying REDUCE, he was saying cut out. Read his comments on sugar that I quoted above. (For NorthCascades, I think those comments about sugar being worse than smoking and causing you to do bad acts count as demonization.)
I don't consider myself a "clean eater" in any way, shape or form - yet of LaLanne's list, the only items I consume regularly are ice cream (Halo Top, so reduced calories/fat) and soda (diet soda, so zero calories). All the rest I consume anywhere from seldom to very seldom/almost never. Even at my fattest and my sloppiest/most lax levels of food intake, those foods weren't my vices, so his supposedly wonderful advice to cut all those virtually non-existent foods out of my diet would have been of basically zero benefit to me. It's about as useful as telling a vegan that the best way to lose weight is to cut meat products out of their diet. Or telling a marathon runner that they should take up running for weight loss.
I gained weight by eating too much of foods I like - virtually none of which are on that list. I lost weight by eating those same foods, but in smaller quantities, and increasing my caloric expenditure by becoming more active.
Ditto. A big part of my weight gain was lean chicken, cheese and long grain rice.
I so wish I had that problem rather than an Oreo, chocolate, ice cream, and Reese’s peanut butter cup problem.
Don't get me wrong, I can go for an occasional box of oreos or Reese Cups, but I can eat 2 plates of chicken and cheesy broccoli rice lunch and dinner every day for a year.
And it's chicken breast and rice, it's got to be healthy.... Made from scratch It's got to be good.2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »Very interesting. ^^^
So, the idea that eating less cake, instead of no cake, may not have been understood during Jacks time.
Is that possible?
We’re arguing about a concept now that wasn’t understood very well, or at all, then.
I don't think it is.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
If the recommendations don’t apply to an individual’s situation, they are not helpful.
I think that’s the point you’re missing.
Lemurcat and GottaBurnEmAll aren’t saying the guidelines are useless because they have their diets dialed in...they’re saying that they’re misguided for recommending an approach which may not resolve the issue. For instance, they gained weight while following these recommendations. Thus, blindly saying “reduce sugar intake” is not necessarily good advice.
What would be helpful is advice to identify the source/cause of the calorie surplus and act accordingly to achieve a deficit.
Let the solution be tailored to the problem.
Well if you you look back 2 of the top 4 sources of calories in the American diet are grain based desserts and pop/energy/sports drinks. So for many people, looking at these items with added sugars (and in the case of grain based desserts unhealthy fats) and low nutrient density is a going to be an excellent starting point.
And for many people (those who already don’t eat many grain based desserts or drink caloric drinks) its a useless waste of time.
Never mind the fact that blindly saying “to be fit and trim, cut out the desserts” also further confuses people into thinking that desserts themselves cause fat gain, opposed to the caloric surplus they may or may not cause.
If you look back at this thread or any post I've put on these boards related to the subject I say CICO is king regarding weight loss/maintenance.
IMO, the fact that grain based desserts and pop, etc are 2 of the 4 highest categories of calories in the US diet means reduction of these high calorie/low nutrition foods really is low hanging fruit for many people regarding weight loss/control.
Yes, and THOSE people would probably benefit from reducing grain-based desserts and pop. If my diet plan had considered of reducing pop (which I consumed only in diet form, and only occasionally) and grain-based desserts (which weren't a regular part of my diet), I would still be fat and perhaps be whining "it's not fair, I don't eat "bad" foods, I must be doomed to be fat). Instead, I looked at my own diet with honesty and identified what I was doing wrong -- that is what I'm recommending.
Also, I don't think Lalanne was saying REDUCE, he was saying cut out. Read his comments on sugar that I quoted above. (For NorthCascades, I think those comments about sugar being worse than smoking and causing you to do bad acts count as demonization.)
I don't consider myself a "clean eater" in any way, shape or form - yet of LaLanne's list, the only items I consume regularly are ice cream (Halo Top, so reduced calories/fat) and soda (diet soda, so zero calories). All the rest I consume anywhere from seldom to very seldom/almost never. Even at my fattest and my sloppiest/most lax levels of food intake, those foods weren't my vices, so his supposedly wonderful advice to cut all those virtually non-existent foods out of my diet would have been of basically zero benefit to me. It's about as useful as telling a vegan that the best way to lose weight is to cut meat products out of their diet. Or telling a marathon runner that they should take up running for weight loss.
I gained weight by eating too much of foods I like - virtually none of which are on that list. I lost weight by eating those same foods, but in smaller quantities, and increasing my caloric expenditure by becoming more active.
Ditto. A big part of my weight gain was lean chicken, cheese and long grain rice.
I'm in a similar situation. Lalanne's guidelines wouldn't have done much for me because they're either foods I never ate or foods I only ate occasionally.
What's "weird" is that I eat them *more* now that I have a solid understanding of calories. When I was struggling with my weight I often avoided them and got frustrated that my weight wouldn't magically go down (when it was the double-size portion of rice, the extra olive oil on my pasta, or the second bowl of black bean chili that was really what I needed to focus on).2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Very interesting. ^^^
So, the idea that eating less cake, instead of no cake, may not have been understood during Jacks time.
Is that possible?
We’re arguing about a concept now that wasn’t understood very well, or at all, then.
I don't think it is.
Wait what?
Calories were not known. People don’t understand what “less cake” means. How is this not relevant?
The concept of the calorie was known and I think people were able to get information on the calorie content of various foods (they used to sell handbooks where you could look up foods, I do remember seeing those in the checkout line with magazines when I was a kid). What wasn't required was labels on all foods. But it would still be known, for people who wanted to take the time to understand, that "cake" is generally a higher calorie food than, say, a carrot.
So the concept of "some cake" being okay for weight control and "huge amounts of cake" being less okay would have been completely graspable for someone like Jack Lalanne and anyone interested in health/weight control.
(I'm in my late 30s, so if someone with more relevant historical and/or real-life memories needs to correct me, please do).2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Very interesting. ^^^
So, the idea that eating less cake, instead of no cake, may not have been understood during Jacks time.
Is that possible?
We’re arguing about a concept now that wasn’t understood very well, or at all, then.
I don't think it is.
Wait what?
Calories were not known. People don’t understand what “less cake” means. How is this not relevant?
Are you seriously claiming that nobody knew what a calorie was 50 years ago?
and that nobody knew what less means.
That's almost as ridiculous as the claim that nobody knew the earth was 25000 miles around and approximately spherical 500 years ago.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Very interesting. ^^^
So, the idea that eating less cake, instead of no cake, may not have been understood during Jacks time.
Is that possible?
We’re arguing about a concept now that wasn’t understood very well, or at all, then.
I don't think it is.
Wait what?
Calories were not known. People don’t understand what “less cake” means. How is this not relevant?
Are you seriously claiming that nobody knew what a calorie was 50 years ago?
and that nobody knew what less means.
That's almost as ridiculous as the claim that nobody knew the earth was 25000 miles around and approximately spherical 500 years ago.
Calories were obviously understood 50 years ago, the US military was using calories to determine military rations during WWII and perhaps even earlier.0 -
JerSchmare wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Very interesting. ^^^
So, the idea that eating less cake, instead of no cake, may not have been understood during Jacks time.
Is that possible?
We’re arguing about a concept now that wasn’t understood very well, or at all, then.
I don't think it is.
Wait what?
Calories were not known. People don’t understand what “less cake” means. How is this not relevant?
Are you seriously claiming that nobody knew what a calorie was 50 years ago?
and that nobody knew what less means.
That's almost as ridiculous as the claim that nobody knew the earth was 25000 miles around and approximately spherical 500 years ago.
No, I’m not claiming that.
I’m saying that it was not popular or well known. Iifym wasn’t an understood concept because it wasn’t yet invented. I was around then. There was very little known about nutrition. Go pick up a body building book from the 1960’s. Probably says, don’t eat cake. Lol.
I just think you are coming from a 2017 mindset, instead of think about 1960. Information was not readily available. No one had smart phones. We didn’t even have computers yet, in people homes. You had to go to a library or something. And no one did that unless they were in college, or something.
LOL. I think you're coming at it from a 2017 mindset.
I'll check my library next time I'm home(I've got a few thousand books). I've got some health and fitness books from the 50s and 60s, I'll check one of the body building books for diet advice, and post the results.
Lots of people used libraries in the Pre-internet age. Even if they weren't in college. And they had stores where you could buy books.
There's very little new information or understanding regarding nutrition. In fact, the availability of easy information has made things worse, not better, because now every wackjob with an idea can publish it and get readers and followers without anything intelligent to say.
Also.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5BX
That program was sold at every checkout and newsstand in the country in the 60s.2 -
JerSchmare wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Very interesting. ^^^
So, the idea that eating less cake, instead of no cake, may not have been understood during Jacks time.
Is that possible?
We’re arguing about a concept now that wasn’t understood very well, or at all, then.
I don't think it is.
Wait what?
Calories were not known. People don’t understand what “less cake” means. How is this not relevant?
It's a good point that information was less readily available in the past. But the fact that people didn't know the specific numbers of calories in a side of cake vs a grapefruit doesn't mean people didn't understand concepts of more and less, moderation, etc, or notice patterns in how heavy and lean people ate.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Very interesting. ^^^
So, the idea that eating less cake, instead of no cake, may not have been understood during Jacks time.
Is that possible?
We’re arguing about a concept now that wasn’t understood very well, or at all, then.
I don't think it is.
Wait what?
Calories were not known. People don’t understand what “less cake” means. How is this not relevant?
Are you seriously claiming that nobody knew what a calorie was 50 years ago?
and that nobody knew what less means.
That's almost as ridiculous as the claim that nobody knew the earth was 25000 miles around and approximately spherical 500 years ago.
No, I’m not claiming that.
I’m saying that it was not popular or well known. Iifym wasn’t an understood concept because it wasn’t yet invented. I was around then. There was very little known about nutrition. Go pick up a body building book from the 1960’s. Probably says, don’t eat cake. Lol.
I just think you are coming from a 2017 mindset, instead of think about 1960. Information was not readily available. No one had smart phones. We didn’t even have computers yet, in people homes. You had to go to a library or something. And no one did that unless they were in college, or something.
LOL. I think you're coming at it from a 2017 mindset.
I'll check my library next time I'm home(I've got a few thousand books). I've got some health and fitness books from the 50s and 60s, I'll check one of the body building books for diet advice, and post the results.
Lots of people used libraries in the Pre-internet age. Even if they weren't in college. And they had stores where you could buy books.
There's very little new information or understanding regarding nutrition. In fact, the availability of easy information has made things worse, not better, because now every wackjob with an idea can publish it and get readers and followers without anything intelligent to say.
I don't have a lot of older nutrition books, but I do have an early edition of "Sex and the Single Girl" by Helen Gurley Brown and it includes some nutritional information (you know, to help a single girl look and feel her best). It's kind of dated, but it was interesting to me how a lot of the fundamentals are the same as in current recommendations: don't skimp on protein, get plenty of vegetables, fiber is important, pay attention to the quantity of sweetened drinks and candy in your diet, try new foods (in the context of this book, that's wheat germ and organ meats), get into the habit of cooking at least some of your own meals.
Looking at my sister who is now in her early 20s, the same advice would generally be good for her and it would have generally been good for me in my early 20s. We learn new stuff and we have new ways to talk about it, but I don't think nutrition changes all that much.1 -
JerSchmare wrote: »Question: when were calories listed on foods? I don’t remember them in the 1960s or 1970s. When did listing calories become a thing? (I’m not suggesting they weren’t there, I just didn’t notice). The reason I am asking is maybe people didn’t understand about “eating less cake”, so from a standpoint of educating, it was easier to be more direct and just say, “don’t eat cake”.
I think this philosophy may be relevant to when food labels and calorie counting started to become a thing.
Maybe in Jacks day, there wasnt any knowledge about calories.
I remember the '70s a bit (I was 9 in '79), and "don't overdo dessert" was known.
From my mom, calories and fattening foods (of which cake was considered one) were commonly known way before the '70s. I don't think people ate cake that much. I recall kids eating it at birthday parties and adults not really at all. (But as noted above, we were a pie family and had that at holidays. We had chocolate at Easter, though, and cookies commonly throughout the year, but they were more for kids again.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions